Readers' comments

There seems to be much too much scepticism in these comments over what is obviously an unfolding global catastrophy.
Politics and economies is all we ever hear about. Talk, talk and more talk only blinds our perception.
You want evidence that man can't ghange the world? Well, man has changed the world by tearing out all the natural resources for money. I would like to know what will happen to the money that has been accumalated, if Nature really turns turns it on?
Anyway, it's not just global warming and climate change we have to think about, it's the people that have to breath sheer poison into their lungs just to keep the economies going.
The basic solution is to replace crude oil with a safer alternative, look UP for power instead of down and put the people first.
AIR....fresh for the people.

The Economist should know that the Rudd Government has not provided the Electorate with any costings on the impact of the defeated legislation. Good riddance to yet another market between the producer and consumer.

What the World really needs is a list of ten ways to enjoy Global Warming (since no scheme so far will reduce greenhouse gas concentrations).

Hooray for common sense! Finally some good news to show those evil Marxist climate change hoaxers, it is a hoax and another pathetic political stunt. I feel sorry for Co2, only makes up a mere .038% of atmosphere yet it is blamed for everything and esp. climate change.

ETS or CPRS is just another tax. Our boofhead Mandarin, Kaptian Krudd has spent a whopping $170 billion on stimulus measures, one being cash handouts to taxpayers, pensioners and the dole bludgers too. The retail sector was busy for a few months on imported goods we bought mainly from China which help more carbon into the atmosphere. We have nothing to show for this spent money except material possessions.

As the world leaders embrace the failed ideology of Globalisation, it makes me wonder how on one hand they are pushing for more movement of people, goods and services but yet on the other hand we are told to reduce our carbon footprint. If they really believed in reducing carbon emissions the world leaders would scrap globalisation but they are not so they continue to lie to the masses on climate change. Global warming has been replaced by climate change - it is just hot air by the pollies and the moronic environmentalists.

It is also very refreshing to see most Contributers acknowledge Co2 climate change is a hoax. As Lenin said, "Tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth".

Perhaps, but it doesn't really matter if we are not going to make the needed 83% cuts in emissions. We are not going to cut by 83%, so why make a big issue of this now? These little programs as somewhat meaningless, even if enacted.

On Thursday the conference speaker claimed that if we stopped emissions 100% tomorrow that the carbon already present will not drop for a millenium.

The evidence for anthropogenic global warming isn't strong: it's overwhelming. It's about as settled as anything can be in modern science. But people believe what makes them feel good not what the evidence says, and people like to believe they are part of a virtuous minority that alone knows the truth (it's how religion often works). Unfortunately facts are stubborn things.

This article is misleading in a couple of respects. For a start, the economy is a strong electoral plus for the government - they argue that Australia is the only developed country to avoid recession (true), that their debt is trivial by historic and international standards (true) and that all this is due to them (less true, but electorally plausible).

Second, all the polling indicates more voters are irate with the proposed scheme because it is too weak rather than too strong. Any election is most likely to give the Greens the balance of power in the Senate (though an outright government majority is also possible), and then the pressure will be on to strengthen rather than weaken the scheme.

The opposition is in a dreadful position, and all due to their denialist rump.

It really doesn't matter if global warming is real - or if Australia passes this bill or not. What matters if we cut emissions by 83% or not. If we cut emissions by only 70%, it ends up exactly as though we did nothing.

The Economist really should do an article on what we will need to give up to cut emissions by 83%.

Aircraft would need to be banned, as well as air conditioning and private vehicles. It is time to look at what is really needed. A 20% or a 50% reduction means nothing.

Kevin Rudd's so-called commitment to halting climate change is nothing but political eyewash. Owned by a party with a bigoted anti-nuclear attitude, as well as a record of promoting the coal industry, the Rudd Labor platform was always a sham.
If the Rudd government purports to be earnest about carbon emissions, why does it evince complacency about population growth and its consequences?
Rudd's government shamelessly advocates record and growing levels of hydrocarbon exports, as these fuels are burned outside national borders. Does that policy stance not strike anybody as absurdly incongruous?
Aside from the need to lure the environmentalist vote, this emissions trading scheme depends on an act of faith, as its day of reckoning is so far enough into the future as not to affect present-day political careers, anyway. There is a certain vanity in an Australian PM who fancies he is saving the planet.

Whatever the view that greenhouse gasses have on planetary temperature, the nay Sayers should have some view about whether the planet is warming. Maybe the planet is actually getting colder, whilst its ability to stay cool is diminishing as ice melts away. They should be addressing what to do about ice melt, sea level rise and sea acidification, which experiments suggest could decimate much sea life.
Previous comments have said the global warming view and all the expense proposed to fix it is an exercise in risk minimisation. It would be constructive for the critics to say what should be done to mitigate sea level rise and acidification, because they must surely know more unless it is just ignorance, or short term opportunism that drives their views.

Things have moved on since this article was posted. The Prime Minister has declared that he will not call an early election although he may well have a double dissolution when the full election is due.

The current government was elected as much by protest vote as on their platform so to claim they have a mandate may be technically true but not necessarily realistic.

So by the time the full election is called, double dissolution or not, our interest rates will have risen (we have been assured by the Governor or the Reserve bank) and we will be very concerned about government debt and spending. In other words, the battle may have moved on from climate change to hip pocket issues. Remember, the previous government left a surplus and Australia had benefitted from a decade of strong personal economic growth. The alterations proposed by the current leader of the opposition may actually appear more attractive in 14 months time.

I have been a skeptic about the extent (not the fact) of anthropogenic climate change since it became a mainstream topic more than twenty years ago. I still have some doubts - but any responsible political leader would be looking at this as risk management and the balance of evidence is certainly there to support action on emissions. Cap and trade systems are probably, again on balance, the best answer for high per capita emitters like Australia. Rabid climate skepticism or denial (based on flawed analysis and dodgy data) is now just a conservative ploy to delay rational policy.

But the charade reported in this article is more about Australian political tactics than about economics or climate change. PM Rudd is a master at applying the political "wedge" to his opponents (as was his conservative predecessor). He will give the Australian conservatives no easy way to come out of this in one piece - even if it means sacrificing the action on climate change he was elected to deliver.

Dear Swamp Rat, on the assumption that you are actually serious here are a few points.

1. How do you actually know that the majority of scientists "buy into" global climate change? Have you conducted some kind of poll or are you merely repeating what has been broadcast in the media ad nauseum? Just because an assertion is repeated a great many times does not necessarily make it true.

2. Even if the vast majority of scientists did support the AGW hypothesis it wouldnt necessarily make it true. Natural laws are not determined by voting or concensus.

3. What "testing" would you actually be referring to? As far as I am aware all "tests" carried out so far to validate the AGW hypothesis have failed, for instance the search for the signature hot spot over the tropics drew a complete blank. Similarly, satellite and land based measurements over the last 10 years show temperatures cooling, despite increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.

4. What "raw data" did you see in the labs and how did it resemble and validate the Gore movie? How were you able to so readily synthesise the "raw data" to draw such profound conclusions?

5. Stepen Chu is entitled to his opinion but your point is a fallacious argument from authority.

Your arguments may be more persuausive if you were to highlight some actual compelling evidence that linked carbon emission to global temperature.

The number of scientists not buying into global climate change pall in comparison to the number who DO buy into it, including most of the Nobel laureates in physics. I've sold instrumentation to the scientists who have actually done the testing and I've never met one yet who didn't acknowledge climate change based on man made emissions. I've seen the raw numbers.

This isn't in dispute among the vast majority of climatology scientists. Many of the scientists denying climate change are working in different scientific fields that have nothing to do with this particular branch of science. Now I've seen Gore's film and a lot of speculation about future changes was presented as fact, but the raw data looked like what I had seen in the labs themselves. Making exact predictions on future changes is nearly impossible being the ecosystem is so large and complex, but predicting general changes can be done pretty accurately.

Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, a Nobel laureate, considers this opposing viewpoint to be utter nonsense. You might want to check out what he's written to get a nice synopsis of current thinking among the top scientists. You might find it more accurate and enlightening than what some radio talking heads are saying.

I am getting wearisome of this paper's presentation of global warming as fact in article after article. The Economist is supposed to be the epitome of objectiveness after all; that's why I subscribe. Take away that 'fact' of global warming and this entire story is of no consequence whatsoever. When some major change is promoted on a nation (say with the US and the monstrous Cap and Trade bill) and the major supporting reason is global warming, then there really isn't a need for the legislation. If the legislation won't stand on its own merits, but requires the 'big hammer' of global warming, then there isn't much good in the bill is there?

Thousands of scientists are disputing the entire global warming agenda. Man-made CO2 emissions have nothing to do with any global warming that may have occurred; global warming has always increased in advance of any CO2 buildup - not afterward. In fact, there has been global cooling for the past 10 years.
Read: In the Global Warming Archives at www.tribunepapers.com
the article Global Warming: Since When and Says Who

I do not see any suggestion of removing the regulations (that DO NOT improve health and safety) on nuclear power in this article. As even James Lovelock (the "Gaia Man") admits - without more nuclear power talk of really reducing C02 emissions is just more "hot air".

As for closing down Australian manufacturing by higher energy costs (a defacto energy tax), this would simply mean yet more goods being manufactured in China and then shipped back to Australia (just as "Cap and Trade" would mean yet more goods being made in China and then shipped to the United States in the American context, assuming these goods could be paid for at all). This would not mean less C02 emissions - it would mean MORE C02 emissions.